Kavanaugh Sunday: Return Of The '90s

It's your Sunday Show Rundown.

Hello Wonks and welcome to another Sunday Show Rundown. We have a lot of dumb things said by dumb men this week regarding rape allegations and Supreme Court nominations, so let's get started.

We begin with South Carolina Senator and John McCain's work widow, Lindsey Buckingham Graham. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace, he went and made a few statements on this week'sSalem Witch TrialsSenate Judiciary hearing with Brett Kavanaugh and Goddamn American Hero Christine Blasey Ford .

From it's 'kangaroo court' set-up:

GRAHAM: We are not going to turn over to the other side how many witnesses to call. There will be two witnesses, Dr. Ford and then Judge Kavanaugh and we will hire our own counsel.

To how Republicans on the Commmitee are looking at this:

GRAHAM: And here's what I told my colleagues, this accusation has to be looked at in terms of our legal system. It's too old for criminal trial, it's 36 years old. You couldn't bring a civil suit because you can't tell the court what time it happened and where it happened.

Actually Judiciary Committee has set up something more like Forced Arbitration than a trial, but more on that later. As far as Maryland law, in this case attempted rape in the first degree would be the most appropriate charge. However, it was a misdemeanor in the 1980s in Maryland. It did not become a felony in the state until 1996. Due to this, Maryland's statute of limitations for misdemeanors for an offense committed in the 1980s expired long ago. And as former Attorney General Doug Gansler, who also served as Montgomery County state's attorney, noted to The Baltimore Sun, Kavanaugh was a juvenile at the time, further complicating any investigation/prosecution before noting the type of acts that have been alleged are not ones for which juveniles are typically charged as adults.

Let alone white, rich, privileged and connected ones.

But Graham really topped it off when he gave away his "impartiality":

GRAHAM: I want to -- I want to listen to her but I'm being honest with you and everybody else. What do you expect me to do? You can't bring it in a criminal court. You would never sue civilly. You couldn't even get a warrant. What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy's life based on an accusation -- I don't know when it happened, I don't know where it happened and everybody named in regard to being there said it didn't happen. I'm just being honest. Unless there's something more, no, I'm not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life over this, but she should come forward. She should have her say. She will be respectfully treated.

What's the point of this charade if you already made up your mind? Also, "ruin Kavanaugh's life"? This is a goddamn job interview. The worst that could happen is that he doesn't get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and fucks off back to obscurity to the same court he was in. The same court that Merrick Fucking Garland is the Chief Justice for and infinitely more qualified, by the way! What about the ruin of Dr. Ford's life NOW?! And regarding "unless there's something more," well, I have a bit of bad news for you guys:  #MeToo avenging angels Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer have come for Kavanaugh. 

Next we have Georgia Senator David Perdue. Speaking with Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet The Press," Perdue once again tried to invoke a very important tenet of the judicial system:

PERDUE: Well, look, these are serious allegations. I hope Dr. Ford can be put in a comfortable situation, where she can provide the information. Look, this is a democracy. We have a judicial system. But we also have innocent until proven guilty.

Perdue would be correct ... if this were a trial. But if this was a real trial there would be witness testimony, experts, a jury of their peers, an impartial judge, and a verdict. This thing that is happening Thursday is a televised forced arbitration to give cover for shaky "moderate" Republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker -- the "strongly worded statement/will still vote for everything bad" crew.

But Perdue quickly scores a self-own when he brings up Kavanaugh's previous background checks:

PERDUE: I think the burden here, Chuck, is to find the truth, just like it is in any courtroom in our land. And that's what we're about to do. You know we have people -- this man has had six investigations, six F.B.I. investigations. This isn't the first time he's been fully vetted.

TODD: But not, not one on this specific charge. Do you think, there should be one on -- do you think, at this point, though, you would want, at least, the comfort of the F.B.I. having looked into this, even if it's for a ten-day period, at this point?

PERDUE: Well, they've already done that. I mean,their job is not to determine who's telling the truthbut to make sure that the issue is brought before the body looking at it, and that's the Judiciary Committee, at this point. This information was made public through Senator Feinstein. And so the way I look at it is the F.B.I.'s already done it. They're not -- their role in this case is not to determine who's telling the truth. It's to make sure that the Senate has the information.

TODD: So you don't think there should be an additional investigation to at least establish if the party happened and establish some more facts, have an F.B.I. agent interview, perhaps, some of the other people that Dr. Ford says were at that house party?

PERDUE: Part of what the F.B.I. is supposed to do is to make sure that they determine that this is an issue and to make sure that they bring it before the committee. We've had precedents on this before. And in this case, they have done their duty. And right now, the only people that are going to determine who's telling the truth in this issue are the United States senators.

As Chuck Todd pointed out, none of the previous background checks included Dr. Ford's allegation (or Ramirez's) because they weren't aware of it. The F.B.I. could question everyone and give out a report in several days like they did in the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case. It took three days. But they won't. Because, we guess (Jack Nicholson voice), they can't handle the truth. 

So instead, we'll have this mockery of process and they'll repeat the mistakes of the Anita Hill hearings decades ago.

And that does it for this week! Looks like the '90s are back in style! So grab a Blockbuster card, some Crystal Pepsi, put on a Chicago Bulls jersey and get ready for what will be another week of insanity with a possible Thursday televised shit show! See ya' on the other side!

 
 Kavanaugh's nomination re-enactment in a normal scenario

 Giphy 

Wonkette is ad-free and supported ONLY by YOU. Please grab your credit card and hit the easy donation thingie RIGHT THERE BELOW!